The Virtual Abbey

Let us pray.

That is a phrase common to the world I inhabit; a world of prayer in the liturgy of the Latin Rite of Western Catholicism, the Church founded by St. Peter and ruled to this day by the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI. I am a Catholic, and a loyal one.

Although I style this site as an Abbey, and myself as an Abbot, those terms are notional. I do not live in a real abbey, and in that I am married, it would be scandalous for me to assert that I am an Abbot. My Abbey is Virtual, and as an Abbot I am virtual. But my prayer life is real.

This is my blog about this prayer life.

For now, I am allowing comments, though I will strike anything I consider profane. And although I follow the news of the outer world, my blog is very much a reaction to that world. I used to think that our culture was a thing that needed to be chided and reformed. I have now come to the conclusion that it is something that needs to be avoided. If our culture will be reformed, it will be a reform conducted from the ruins. I may make comments from time to time on the culture; but I will not make politics or the culture my regular beat.

My prayer life, which I will discuss on this blog, is of more interest to me than the outer world. The writings of the Church Fathers contain more wisdom than anything that is on television. The Liturgy of the Hours, which is my primary system of prayer, is more rewarding than anything the world could offer me. And my God, to whom I pray, is finer than anything in His creation.

And yet he chose to hallow this creation with his own incarnation, rather than condemn it as profane. He chose to save the world rather than destroy it. He does so primarily through his Church, which He put in place for a time until He returns.

We are, therefore living in a time between times. We do not know how long we wait; we only know that God's plans are not our plans, that his time is not our time.

While we wait, we pray. We preach the gospel, we baptize people of all nations. We do what He asked of us in the last chapter of the gospel of Matthew.

For me, my faith lay dormant for some years. Then in the Advent season of 2006, my faith awoke. I started to pray, got to confession, and go to Mass. And I started to pray, morning and night.

Then I discovered the Liturgy of the Hours, and that the church had a means of sanctifying time.

I pray all seven "hours" in the course of the day. The shortest hours take about 5 minutes. The longest hours take about 20 minutes.

I encourage all Christians to pray it. It will revolutionize your faith.

And, in a sense, this is what this blog is about.

Your faith.

The site will be undergoing a lot of format changes as I bring it up to date. Templates, archives, categories, themes, etc. will all be changing.

Think of St. Francis and the chapel of San Damiano.

One block at a time.

A passage from Jeremiah 17:7-8

Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose hope is the LORD. He is like a tree planted beside the waters that stretches out its roots to the stream: It fears not the heat when it comes, its leaves stay green; In the year of drought it shows no distress, but still bears fruit.

I am always struck by this quote from Jeremiah because it is an image that recurs in the writings of Teresa of Avila time and time again. She describes prayer as being like a gardener wishing to water a garden. He starts by drawing water from a well -- a hard process, with little to show for it. After time doing this, prayer becomes easier, like a well with a pump. In the third stage, it is like having a nearby stream that irrigates the garden with water continuously. In the fourth stage, it is like rain falling from Heaven -- the rewards of prayer are showered on the person doing the prayer. (I'll have to look up the quote -- it is either from The Way, or the Life, or the Interior Castle).

The quote from Jeremiah speaks of trust. Prayer is something like an act of trust -- to a person not convinced that God hears prayers, it is an act of trust to pray -- you hope the time is well spent. It seems like a lot of effort, and if there is a reward, it can seem small. But the more one prays with confidence and trust that the prayer is heard, the more the rewards are apparent. The tree grows because the water is there; it withstands even those periods of drought. A person with a strong prayer life is indeed like that tree, and can withstand the most difficult situations.

Of course, a skeptic will say "Why does God put a person in difficult situations if he hears the prayer? Why doesn't he simply bless a person so that no difficulty at all falls into their lives?" The answer is complicated. We do not know God's will, we do not know all the situations he is trying to resolve. If you think of all the interactions of people and things in the world, and consider that there is purpose, life becomes immensely complicated. Take into account the actions of people with free will -- and God respects our free will greatly -- and the situation becomes even more complicated. To me, it is as if God sits atop a great hill, and we are walking up a torturous path to get to him. The path winds and twists many times before it reaches the summit. God, looking down from above, can guide us through this maze, if we are open to him, but like a maze, sometimes the easy path is the wrong one. Sometimes we have to backtrack a long distance before we can make progress going forward. The path makes no sense to us, because we do not have a map, and we do not have the view from above. We simply have to trust that when he speaks to us, he is speaking with our best interest at heart.

Sometimes his words are hard, and the path is difficult. Sometimes it takes years to understand and gain persepctive over events in our lives. And sometimes his purposes for us involve the cross -- for our good, or the good of those around us.

We have to trust that the reward is there. Like the tree in Jeremiah, we have to trust that the stream is there, even when the ground is broken by drought.

Today is the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is not to be confused with the Presentation of Christ. You may ask, what is the presentation of the Virgin Mary? It is an event that is not noted in Scripture, but as Wikipedia points out, it is mentioned in the non-canonical works, the Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. Mary was born to St. Anne, who was childless late in life, and in return, St. Anne and St. Joachim dedicated Mary to God's service. According to tradition, she was brought to the Temple at about age three to be educated.

Wikipedia also notes that this is one of the major feasts of the Orthodox Church, while in the West its status has varied. A lot of people who are critical of the Marian devotions of Catholicism don't realize that the Eastern Church is nearly just as dedicated to these traditions as Rome is, and has been from antiquity. These are not medieval inventions, by any means.

The Roman Catholic church also celebrates this day as "Pro Orantibus" Day -- a day to remember cloistered women religious. If you have a nun in your life who has been of special significance to you, it is a good day to remember her with a phone call or a visit, if her order permits it.

In today's Office of Readings, we have a Sermon from St. Augustine on the blessed Virgin Mary on Matthew 12:49

Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Savior was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her -- did she not do the will of the Father? Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.

The Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours usually has, as its second reading, writings from church councils, saints, or the church Fathers. It is an extremely valuable to read the Fathers, men such as St. Augstine, St. Ambrose, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St Ignatius of Antioch, and others, because they pondered, many centuries ago, questions on the scripture which are still relevant today. These men had the benefit of living close to the source, in that they heard much in the teachings and semons of the early church that was not necessarily recorded in Scripture. While Scripture is the first and best teacher of the faith, and is considered inerrant by Catholics, it exists, in the Catholic view, as a part of sacred tradition. While reading the Bible is extremely productive, one must be wary of placing too great an emphasis on one's own interpretation. Matthew 12:49 could be taken as a statement that devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary are not approved by Christ -- yet clearly, Augustine, steeped in the tradition of the early church, does not interpret it that way, and neither should we. For who did the will of the Father more perfectly than she who said to the angel Gabriel,

"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
May it be done to me according to your word."

Remember the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all women religious today.

I have been following for some time the crisis in the Episcopal Church. The Espicopal church has always been interesting to me; I remember when I was young that there was a lot of talk about the Episcopal Church reunifying with Rome.

But then the Episcopal Church took a leftward turn that pretty much ended the discussions. First, they began to ordain women, which the Catholic church has said it is not able to do. More recently, the Episcopal church has been torn apart by discussions over human sexuality, particularly homosexuality. While the Catholic church has always viewed homosexuality as being intrinsically disordered (see the Catechism, section 2357), and the Anglican communion has historically viewed it the same way, the Episcopal church has moved away from traditional teaching and has gone so far as to ordain openly gay clergy (which is to say, not only gay, but non-celibate), and in 2003, consecrated an openly gay and non-celibate bishop. The result has been chaos -- the Epicopal church faces possible sanctions from the borader Anglican communion, and some individual parishes and dioceses have begun to leave.

This has forced a lot of traditional Anglicans to reevaluate where they stand, and to consider whether their church can stand against the prevailing cultural tides. Some have concluded it cannot.

Most recently, the Espiscopal bishop of Southwest Florida, John Lipscomb, has decided to become a Catholic.

I was blessed to grow up in a Christian home where I was given the gift of a deep love for the Lord Jesus Christ and a reverence for God’s revelation of his love and redemptive purpose in the Word written, as well as the Word made Flesh. I was blessed to be brought into the family of the Episcopal Church 40 years ago. I have a deep love for the sacramental life, most especially the Eucharistic sacrifice through which God continues to pour his grace into our lives in the Word that needs no words.

I will be forever grateful for the opportunities I had to serve this faith community as a deacon and priest. I am most grateful for the opportunity you, the people of the Diocese of Southwest Florida, gave me to serve as your bishop and to participate in the life of the Anglican Communion. You made it possible for me to share in the mission of God that can never be bound by geographical or political barriers.

I believe God is now calling us to continue our ministry to serve in the healing of the visible Body of Christ in the world. I am convinced our Lord’s deepest desire is for the unity of the Church.

I think this trend will continue. Many Espicopalians and Anglicans will, in seeing their leadership abandon the traditional teachings of the faith, begin to enter Rome, as it is the great fortress of the faith. Many who cannot accept the authority of the Pope will approach the Orthodox church, as it, too, has stuck to tradition.

On the one hand, it is a great thing -- for many people are coming into the Catholic church. On the other hand, it is worrisome -- because while many will come to Catholicism, many more will follow their leadership into an understanding of Christian doctrine that is incompatible with Scripture. For every person that comes fully into the light, as we Catholics view it, a greater number are moving further away into the darkness.

Meanwhile, a real Benedictine monk is having an ongoing discussion on his blog with a professed Satanist. If you want to see a model of patience and Christian charity at work, read Father Stephanos's inspired responses to many questions. His side of the dialogue is practically a primer on Catholicism in itself.

I hope he leads her out of the maze of her reasoning and into the light.

Hat tip to Gerald Augustinus . . .

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

About the middle of the fifth century originated Acts of the martyrdom of St. Cecilia which have been transmitted in numerous manuscripts; these acts were also translated into Greek. They were utilized in the prefaces of the above-mentioned masses of the "Sacramentarium Leonianum". They inform us, that Cecilia, a virgin of a senatorial family and a Christian from her infancy, was given in marriage by her parents to a noble pagan youth Valerianus. When, after the celebration of the marriage, the couple had retired to the wedding-chamber, Cecilia told Valerianus that she was betrothed to an angel who jealously guarded her body; therefore Valerianus must take care not to violate her virginity. Valerianus wished to see the angel, whereupon Cecilia sent him to the third milestone on the Via Appia where he should meet Bishop (Pope) Urbanus. Valerianus obeyed, was baptized by the pope, and returned a Christian to Cecilia. An angel then appeared to the two and crowned them with roses and lilies. When Tiburtius, the brother of Valerianus, came to them, he too was won over to Christianity. As zealous children of the Faith both brothers distributed rich alms and buried the bodies of the confessors who had died for Christ. The prefect, Turcius Almachius, condemned them to death; an officer of the prefect, Maximus, appointed to execute this sentence, was himself converted and suffered martyrdom with the two brothers. Their remains were buried in one tomb by Cecilia. And now Cecilia herself was sought by the officers of the prefect. Before she was taken prisoner, she arranged that her house should be preserved as a place of worship for the Roman Church. After a glorious profession of faith, she was condemned to be suffocated in the bath of her own house. But as she remained unhurt in the overheated room, the prefect had her decapitated in that place. The executioner let his sword fall three times without separating the head from the trunk, and fled, leaving the virgin bathed in her own blood. She lived three days, made dispositions in favour of the poor, and provided that after her death her house should be dedicated as a church. Urbanus buried her among the bishops and the confessors, i.e. in the Catacomb of Callistus.

Like so many Roman saints, the inevitable conflict with authority that leads to martyrdom. The Catholic Encyclopedia adds this note:

In this shape the whole story has no historical value; it is a pious romance, like so many others compiled in the fifth and sixth century.

Of course, how the Encyclopedia claims to know this is not explained. The possibility that a story could be handed down orally for a few hundred years before being written down is not, in and of itself, a reason for disbelieving the story. There is doubtless much in the martyrology of which to be skeptical, but martyrdom is a real possibility for Christians even in this day and age (go preach the gospel of Matthew on a street corner in Riyadh if you doubt this), and skepticism is a poor companion to take with you on a final journey. At any rate, as the encyclopedia relates, she is a saint held in veneration by the Romans from antiquity:

This saint, so often glorified in the fine arts and in poetry, is one of the most venerated martyrs of Christian antiquity. The oldest historical account of St. Cecilia is found in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum"; from this it is evident that her feast was celebrated in the Roman Church in the fourth century. Her name occurs under different dates in the above-mentioned martyrology; its mention under 11 August, the feast of the martyr Tiburtius, is evidently a later and erroneous addition, due to the fact that this Tiburtius, who was buried on the Via Labicana, was wrongly identified with Tiburtius, the brother-in-law of St. Cecilia, mentioned in the Acts of her martyrdom. Perhaps also there was another Roman martyr of the name of Cecilia buried on the Via Labicana. Under the date of 16 September Cecilia is mentioned alone, with the topographical note: "Appiâ viâ in eâdem urbe Româ natale et passio sanctæ Ceciliæ virginis (the text is to be thus corrected). This is evidently the day of the burial of the holy martyr in the Catacomb of Callistus. The feast of the saint mentioned under 22 November, on which day it is still celebrated, was kept in the church in the Trastevere quarter at Rome, dedicated to her. Its origin, therefore, is to be traced most probably to this church. The early medieval guides (Itineraria) to the burial-places of Roman martyrs point out her grave on the Via Appia, next to the crypt of the Roman bishops of the third century (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 180-181). De Rossi located the burial-place of Cecilia in the Catacomb of Callistus in a crypt immediately adjoining the crypt or chapel of the popes; an empty niche in one of the walls contained, probably, at one time the sarcophagus with the bones of the saint. Among the frescoes of a later time with which the wall of the sepulchre are adorned, the figure of a richly-dressed woman appears twice and Pope Urban, who was brought personal into close relation with the saint by the Acts of her martyrdom, is depicted once. The ancient titular church of Rome, mentioned above was built as early as the fourth century and is still preserved in the Trastevere. This church was certainly dedicated in the fifth century to the saint buried on the Via Appia; it is mentioned in the signatures of the Roman Council of 499 as "titulus sanctae Caeciliae" (Mansi, Coll, Conc. VIII, 236). Like some other ancient Christian churches of Rome, which are the gifts of the saints whose names they bear, it may be inferred that the Roman Church owes this temple to the generosity of the holy martyr herself; in support of this view it is to be noted that the property, under which the oldest part of the true Catacomb of Callistus is constructed, belonged most likely, according to De Rossi's researches, to the family of St. Cecilia (Gens Caecilia), and by donation passed into the possession of the Roman Church. Although her name is not mentioned in the earliest (fourth century) list of feasts (Depositio martyrum), the fact that in the "Sacramentarium Leoniam", a collection of masses completed about the end of the fifth century, are found no less than five different masses in honour of St. Cecilia testifies to the great veneration in which the saint was at that time held in the Roman Church ["Sacram. Leon.", ed. Muratori, in "Opera" (Arezzo, 1771), XIII, I, 737, sqq.].

St. Cecilia is the patroness of church music, so it is fitting to recall her when considering this story, on how Pope Benedict XVI seeks to revive sacred music, especially Gregorian Chant:

Monsignor Valentin Miserachs Grau, the director of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, believes the entire church should return to Gregorian chance [sic].

"Due to general ignorance, especially in sectors of the clergy, there exists music which is devoid of sanctity, true art and universality," he said.

Spoken like a true reformer -- notice at whom the criticism is aimed.

The great thing about Catholicism is that there are no new discussions, only timeless ones. The story is being spun to portray Benedict as being a relic, a dinosaur, hopelessly out of touch with the modern age. And that is precisely why the effort to revive the chant is the correct one. Christianity is always at conflict with the current trends of the age. The sacred always seems out of touch to the profane.

Three saints today . . .

St. Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome. He is most famous for his epistle to the Corinthians, from which the reading in today's Office of Readings is taken. Like much of the early church's history, his story is obscured by the mists of time and the blood of nearly continuous martyrdom, so the details of his life are not known, and we are left with theories.

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer, Phil., iv, 3, and 80 do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome -- but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family. The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin. Probably he was a freedman or son of a freedman of the emperor's household, which included thousands or tens of thousands. We know that there were Christians in the household of Nero (Phil., iv, 22). It is highly probable that the bearers of Clement's letter, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, were of this number, for the names Claudius and Valerius occur with great frequency in inscriptions among the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius (and his two predecessors of the same gens) and his wife Valeria Messalina. The two messengers are described as "faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably", thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero's persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled "Virgin and Martyr", is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.

St. Columban, the Irish monk and abbot, who early in life was tempted by beautiful women:

When Columban's childhood was over and he became older, he began to devote himself enthusiastically to the pursuit of grammar and the sciences, and studied with fruitful zeal all through his boyhood and youth, until he became a man. But, as his fine figure, his splendid color, and his noble manliness made him beloved by all, the old enemy, began finally to turn his deadly weapons upon him, in order to catch in his nets this youth, whom he saw growing so rapidly in grace. And he aroused against him the lust of lascivious maidens, especially of those whose fine figure and superficial beauty are wont to enkindle mad desires in the minds of wretched men.

But when that excellent soldier saw that he was surrounded on all sides by so deadly weapons, and perceived the cunning and shrewdness of the enemy who was fighting against him, and that by an act of human frailty, he might quickly fall over a precipice and be destroyed -- as Livy says, "No one is rendered so sacred by religion, no one is so guarded, that lust is unable to prevail against him," -- holding in his left hand the shield of the Gospel and bearing in his right hand the two-edged sword, he prepared to advance and attack the hostile lines threatening him. He feared lest, ensnared by the lusts of the world, he should in vain have spent so much labor on grammar, rhetoric, geometry and the Holy Scriptures. And in these perils he was strengthened by a particular aid.

When he was already meditating upon this purpose, he came to the dwelling of a holy and devout woman. He at first addressed her humbly, afterwards he began to exhort her, as far as lay in his power. As she saw the increasing strength of the youth she said: "I have gone , forth to the strife as far as it lay in my power. Lo, twelve years have passed by, since I have been far from my home and have sought out this place of pilgrimage. With the aid of Christ, never since then have I engaged in secular matters; after putting my hand to the plough, I have not turned backward. And if the weakness of my sex had not prevented me, I would have crossed the sea and chosen a better place among strangers as my home. But you, glowing with the fire of youth, stay quietly on your native soil; out of weakness you lend your ear even against your own will, to the voice of the flesh, and think you can associate with the female sex without sin. But do you recall the wiles of Eve, Adam's fall, how Samson was deceived by Delilah, bow David was led to injustice by the beauty of Bathsheba, how the wise Solomon was ensnared by the love of a woman? Away, 0 youth I away! flee from corruption, into which, as you know, many have fallen. Forsake the path which leads to the gates of hell."

Not exactly a story that modern ears sympathize with; we are a promiscuous generation. One wonders why Columban didn't simply get married, but I guess he was called to the monastic life, and for him it would have represented a departure from his true path. At any rate, if you keep the gospel in one hand and a two-edged sword in the other, you're not likely to get into much trouble . . . of that kind, anyway.

Blessed Miguel Pro, the Mexican Jesuit killed in religious persecution of the 1920s.

The churches were closed and priests went into hiding. Miguel spent the rest of his life in a secret ministry to the sturdy Mexican Catholics. In addition to fulfilling their spiritual needs, he also carried out the works of mercy by assisting the poor in Mexico City with their temporal needs. He adopted many interesting disguises in carrying out his secret mininstry. He would come in the middle of the night dressed as a beggar to baptize infants, bless marriages and celebrate Mass. He would appear in jail dressed as a police officer to bring Holy Viaticum to condemned Catholics. When going to fashionable neighboorhoods to procure for the poor, he would show up at the doorstep dressed as a fashionable businessmam with a fresh flower on his lapel. His many exploits could rival those of the most daring spies. In all that he did, however, Fr. Pro remained obedient to his superiors and was filled with the joy of serving Christ, his King.

Martyrdom is not a phenomenon limited to ancient times, nor is it limited to the Old World. I often wonder if the anti-clerical sentiments of our current age will eventually lead priests to wear disguises in public in America. Reading Fr. Neuhaus's comments some time ago on this subject, I think it is a legitimate question. When they outlaw the church, they will do so, no doubt, for what are perceived to be good reasons -- women's health care, the church's sexism, or its homophobia. Already the church is being forced out of medicine and caring for orphans in the name of these things; we'll see how far it goes. I only hope our clergy will be as brave as Miguel Pro was.

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for You
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend;
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labour to admit You, but O, to no end;
Reason, Your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love You, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto Your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again;
Take me to You, imprison me, for I,
Except You enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

-- John Donne

The Liturgy of the Hours has an Appendix devoted to religious poetry; I like the poems of John Donne that are there. Reading a bit about him, I find he was an interesting man.

A day (March 31st) for him is observed by both the Anglican and Lutheran churches, which I also think is pretty interesting. He is, in the sense that those churches use the word, a saint in both those denominations.

Naturally, the Catholic church does not venerate him, but being catholic in the small "c" sense of the word, is perfectly happy to borrow his poetry and include it as material on which to meditate.

The folks over at Coo-ees From The Cloister keep track of the number of mitres Pope Benedict has worn in public appearances.

Current count: 25.

Today is the Solemnity of Christ the King, which is the last Sunday of Ordinary time. Next Sunday we put away the green-covered liturgy of the hours and pick up the blue-covered one, as Advent begins.

It was about this time last year that the experience of my profound conversion of heart began -- I had a sense that the approaching Advent was truly an Advent for me.

I have learned much in the last year, but I do not feel the process of handing my soul over to the King is by any means complete. You do not make up for forty years of neglect in a year. I complete this year still dissatisfied with myself, and still filled with a profound sense of unworthiness that such a King would call upon me. He is leading me to a greater purity and strength of heart, but He is doing so patiently and gently. I think He does so because a swifter approach to him might well kill me.

Psalm 24 asks the question which always moves me profoundly when I read it:

Who may go up the mountain of the LORD? Who can stand in his holy place? The clean of hand and pure of heart, who are not devoted to idols, who have not sworn falsely. They will receive blessings from the LORD, and justice from their saving God.

Climbing the mountain of the Lord is not accomplished in a day; the mountain does not seem so large when seen from a distance, when a person considers idly, "Why don't I try practicing my faith more?" on a November afternoon. It is as foolish a question as saying, from the middle-aged comfort of an armchair, "Let's climb Everest." But consider making that statement to someone you dare not disappoint -- a great king, or a dying child, perhaps -- and suddenly you are immersed in the practical details of a dangerous expedition.

And as you approach the mountain and you see that it is immense beyond understanding, a great and towering rock, wreathed in smoke and clouds, and you consider that the journey might have been unwise. You know to scale its heights will require skill and fitness you do not possess. You see right away that you cannot scale it directly. You also see a road that can carry you up, perhaps halfway. It is a gentle, well-paved road, an easy enough slope to begin with. And so you begin walking it. You put down some of your burdens along the way and leave them on the mountain, and the way becomes easier. You get a little bit more fit as you walk. You're able to go a little farther day to day. You learn techniques of getting around the places where the road is blocked, and learn how to find it again when it seems to disappear for a time.

You do this for a year, and you see how large the mountain really is. You see that the road up the mountain is really a road around the mountain, girdling it like a belt.

I've made something like one complete circle of the belt that is the road around the mountain of the Lord. I can see now again the place where I started in the valley a little below me. The mountain is tall -- perhaps five miles to the summit straight up, if this is Everest -- and I see that the first circuit of the road has carried me up a few hundred feet from the place where I started.

It's a little dismaying.

At any rate, we are back at the solemnity of Christ the King. It is a kind of spiritual base camp; when Advent starts we begin the climb again. Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter make quick progress in the soul; the thirty-four weeks of Ordinary time seem like a long, slow march in comparison; necessary to make us stronger and fitter for what lies ahead.

The Scripture reading from last night is from Ephesians, 1:20-23, from that fine mountaineer of the soul, St. Paul:

May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, and what is the surpassing greatness of his power for us who believe, in accord with the exercise of his great might, which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come.

And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Not only in this age but the age to come. The road stretches on. How far? We do not know. We only know that the mountain is still in front of us, and we have not yet reached its peak.

The enemy we fight, St. Paul reminds us, is not just a physical enemy, or an enemy rooted in our flesh, but it also has an immaterial dimension:

For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one.

The Devil does not merely tempt us to sin, he also attempts to corrupt our way of thinking, our philosophy. He is a master of cloaking evil in the form of a good -- he did not tell Eve of all the deadly consequences of the apple, but instead he told that the apple could bring knowledge, hiding the apple's poison in the guise of a good -- for surely knowledge is good, and God would not deny us knowledge, right?

The Devil is a philosopher, as well as being a tempter -- and he tries to persuade us of things by cloaking evil in the form of a good. But you can tell when a philosophy or an idea comes from him, by a simple rule -- apply the rule universally. If it is a bad idea, the fallacy of it is usually apparent pretty quickly.

Take, for instance, the latest trend in the environmental movement -- voluntary sterilization. Seems like the woman here is acting out of the noblest of motives -- she's trying to save the planet! Who could be against that?

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

Again, the test -- apply it universally. Good things lead to more questions, but evil is absurd on its face. If everyone followed Toni Vernelli's advice, and practiced what she preaches, the human race would be wiped out in a generation. Good for mankind?

Now ask youself -- does that idea come from God or from somewhere else?

Is it an apple, or is it a poison?

I will slowly begin to add two features to the sidebars of the site.

On the left hand side, I'm going to add in the Fourteen Stations of the Cross. On the right hand, I'm going to add in the 20 mysteries of the rosary (the 15 traditional mysteries, and then also Pope John Paul II's pious addition of the Lumnious mysteries). I will put in the prayers associated with them -- the reflections on the stations from a saint (probably St. Alphose Liguori's meditations) and the Stabat Mater, and meditations on the mysteries of the Rosary. It will take me some time to complete this, so understand when you see a mystery or a station pop up, it will be a work in progress.

I'll also start work on a Latin-English psalter, which will probably also go on the left.

Over at First Things, Father Edwatd T. Oakes, S.J., has some fascinating reflections on The Immaculate Conception. Read the whole thing.

The theology of it is truly fascinating, particularly the circularity of it:

The juxtaposition of these two titles points to an important feature of all authentic Mariology, one already touched on by Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus: the circularity of cause and effect in the dispensation of salvation. By that I mean, Mary could not be kept free from sin except by the merits of Christ won on the cross; but of course Christ could not have entered history to save us by dying on the cross except by the free consent of Mary, whose free assent to the angel was a truly graced assent vouchsafed by the future death of her Son.

Of course, what makes this all work is that God exists outside of time, and knows the results of the action of grace ahead of time. In a sense, the Immaculate Conception "worked" because Christ's victory on the cross "worked" -- had Christ rebelled in the desert, he would never have existed, because his mother's Immaculate Conception, and Christ's Virgin Birth, would not therefore have been possible. Had he assented to the Devil's request, he would create the paradox that He could not exist.

Some would argue that this meant that Christ's temptation in the desert was not real -- that because of the Immaculate Conception, the temptation in the desert had no real chance of succeeding. But perhaps it speaks to something more profound than that -- perhaps a successful temptation by the Devil in the desert would have dethroned God. Perhaps the Devil's greatest chance at the ultimate victory was when he asked Christ to make stones into bread, worship the Devil, or jump from the great height.

I have often wondered how the Devil viewed the Virgin Mary, in the days before Christ was born. If he perceived her to be immaculately conceived, he would have to know, if he admitted it to himself, that it meant his rebellion had no ultimate chance of success -- that Mary was made pure because Christ would be made flesh, and therefore mankind would be redeemed. Did he perceive the Virgin Mary to be different from us, and if so, did he understand the implications of why and how she was different? Or did God hide this knowledge from the Devil; in effect veiling the Virgin's Mary's sinlessness from the Devil's view? Did the Devil's own arrogance and pride blind him to the meaning of the Virgin Mary's existence -- which was that Christ would bring mankind to salvation?

And what did the Virgin Mary know of her own state? Even as a child, seeing the sinfulness of people around her, it must have been difficult to understand -- why didn't people simply do what they knew to be right? It must have caused her great pain and sadness to consider the members of her own family, her loved ones, committing sins. Did she view it philosophically, and say "There, but for the grace of God, go I" -- in a truer and more literal sense than any person on Earth ever said it?

And what did Christ know, and when did he know it? Was his state of mind always unique -- even in the cradle, being supernaturally aware of everything around Him? Or did his awareness of his unique state come to him gradually -- reading and hearing Scripture as a child, could he read all the clues and therefore see himself in it, as a man sees his own face on a mirror? If St. Joseph hit himself on the hand with a hammer and swore, did Christ see the pained expression on his mother's face, and understand it in a way somehow different, somehow more, than every other child's experience of an event like this? Did he know that in forgiving St. Joseph for swearing, he was actually forgiving him?

There are thousands of speculations like this one can entertain. Of course, I do not know how profitable any of them are -- it seems to be to be an area that could lead readily into heresy. Like so many things, perhaps it is better than we concentrate on the things which we know to work -- prayer, fasting, and works of charity.

Gerald Augustinus points out some interesting information from a Catholic church's parish website in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Interesting, in the sense of being contrary to Catholic church teaching.

The small church with the open door nestles in a quiet corner of Prospect Park just east of the Mississippi - a haven in winter, a blooming jewel in summer. Immediately you are caught up in the friendship, spirit and shared energy of this worshipping community. There's evidence everywhere that Cabrini opens its doors to all. The building and the liturgy are accessible - no steps, an elevator to the sanctuary, listening devices and signing for the deaf and hard of hearing, a large print version of the weekly bulletin. A raft of posters and notices invites GLBT persons, immigrants, new neighbors and re-entry Catholics. Posted notices also suggest the commitment of the parish to peace and justice in a global environment. ... As Mass begins you will notice immediately the inclusive feel of the liturgy. Led by volunteer musicians, the congregation participates fully in the music. Members adorn the sanctuary with fresh flowers and volunteers assure that the environment reflects the liturgical season. Parishioners share their petitions and their reflections on the readings of the day.

Each Sunday worshippers gather after the 9:00 Mass (or 10:00 Mass in summer) for homegrown hospitality in Garvey Hall. Culinary competition among volunteer host households is keen! You'll probably find a craft sale, a letter-writing campaign or a fundraiser in progress. Cabrini is both special and unpretentious, small in number but large of heart, not for everyone but just right for many.

Well so far, no obvious heresy, though having a GLBT ministry (gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered) is usually a warning sign that a parish is heading that way. The teaching of the Church on gay behavior is pretty straightforward.

Just to review, here's how the Catechism explains it.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You cannot say it in plain English much more clearly than that. There is not a lot of room for interpretation or nuance there; church teaching is what it is.

And it is not a matter of simple bigotry. It involves the church's understanding of the human body, the role of sex, and the creation of life. Simply put, the church believes that sex that is not open to the possibility of creating human life is contrary to God's intention for the act. Because sex is the means by which new human lives are created, and new souls are put on the Earth, it is an act fraught with great moral significance, and is reserved for married couples -- men and women.

The parish, though, begs to differ -- and has done so in writing. Here is their "Statement of Reconciliation".

St. Frances Cabrini Parish

STATEMENT OF RECONCILIATION

We, the members of St. Frances Cabrini Parish, claim as our own the words of the Apostle Paul. "There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male and female: for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

As members of one body we are grieved by the separation of many of those Catholics who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual from the Catholic Church. We are aware of the centuries of oppression that these brothers and sisters have suffered at the hands of civil and religious authorities. We are aware of recent attempts by our bishops to label our brothers and sisters as "objectively disordered," and to fight against their being granted their full civil rights.

We are also aware that these brothers and sisters have walked with us in our faith throughout the centuries. They have served the Church in every capacity, from the most humble to the most exalted. Despite the hostility they have encountered, they have by their actions proven to be true lovers of Jesus. In being honest about their sexual identity, they have embraced a difficult cross.

I think it is interesting that they are willing to own that particular quote of St. Paul's. I wonder if they they are willing to own 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 as their own, also:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Or how about Romans 1:20-28, if that is not clear enough?

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

I'm not so sure St. Paul would necessarily agree with where they are headed with this. But perhaps I quibble, and I'll let them interpret that passage as they see fit for now.

But where the parish says

"We are aware of recent attempts by our bishops to label our brothers and sisters as "objectively disordered," and to fight against their being granted their full civil rights",

this is heading into open disobedience. The teaching of the bishops, while not considered infallible, is nevertheless worthy of considerable respect, and requires obedience from all Catholics. In the Catholic church, a bishop is not simply a man with a funny hat -- he is an heir of the Apostles. When one opposes a bishop, one is opposing the Apostles, and this is getting into dangerous ground.

And the church's teaching on homosexuality is not a new teaching -- it has been held by the church for two thousand years, and by Judaism for long before that. It is not as if this is an obscure or difficult theological point, or something that the church has no opinion on. If one opposes a bishop, one ought to be able to point to other bishops, church councils, Rome, or Scripture to make one's case. One cannot simply reject the teaching of the church without an appeal to another, or higher, authority. This parish instead has chosen to reject the teaching of the bishops without making any kind of theological case for what they are advancing.

I don't want to create a strawman where the parish has not offered an argument, but the argument typically advanced is that it is the opinion of some scientists, and of gay people themselves, that they are born gay.

That may well be. We are all born with inclinations that are sinful. I may have been born with wiring that makes me more likely to be a compulsive gambler, or prone to drink, or likely to have a hair trigger temper. Knowing this might be helpful in explaining my behavior or in mitigating my culpability when I gamble, drink, or swear. But I do not say "I am an alcoholic, and therefore I am without sin." I ought to say, instead, "I am an alcoholic, therefore, I ought to avoid occasions where I am tempted to drink," or "I have a short temper, I must learn behaviors that allow me to overcome my anger lest I hurt someone."

It may be a real struggle for me. It may be something that I struggle with, and never successfully overcome. I may go to my grave drinking, swearing, and gambling, despite my best efforts. But I am compelled to make the effort. I am compelled to acknowledge my sinfulness. I am compelled to confess my behavior as sinful. And I am compelled to try to live up to what the church asks of me. And if I can't do it, the church still forgives. I must still try to avoid the sin, and to avoid bringing the church into the public scandal associated with it.

But let's keep going . . .

With this history in mind we commit ourselves and our community to:

Reach out to the gay/lesbian community, encouraging them to join our parish;
Regularly publish our welcome in the gay press;
Promise to educate ourselves about gay/lesbian issues and work to overcome stereotypes;
Include a gay/lesbian perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age;
Support lesbians and gay men in ways that promote stable, healthy relationships;
Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage; *
Stand willing to accept qualified, openly gay or lesbian priests or lay ministers;
Zealously work for and guard the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, knowing that all of our civil rights are compromised when theirs are;
Pray for greater understanding and acceptance of gay, and lesbian people in official Church teaching;
Encourage other parishes to become publicly reconciled with the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community.

* Not being implemented at this time.

Approved August 1994

OK, now we're getting into real problems.

"Include a gay/lesbian perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age."

I guess the Devil is in the details. What, exactly, is that perspective? That homosexual acts are sinful, objectively disordered, and that people with the orientation are called to live celibate lives? If not, then are we teaching something other than the Catechism, and if so -- on whose authority? The other thing I would question is whether the material is age appropriate -- should I be teaching questions of sexual ethics to grade school children, who generally don't practice sex? Might I not gear the teaching of children toward something more productive -- "Don't lie, steal, or cheat in school, kids" or "Here is how you say the Our Father"?

Why bring up questions of sexual ethics to children at all, other than to say "these are matters for adults, and no one, of any sex or age, including your parish priest or this catechist, is to touch you inappropriately"?

Needless to say, were I a parent, I'd want to see anything my children were being taught before I'd endorse a GLBT ethics class for grade school children. And I think I might want the bishop sitting next to me in that review.

Then there's this:

"Support lesbians and gay men in ways that promote stable, healthy relationships."

My only question is if the relationships here are celibate. If not, then the parish is endorsing relationships that are in clear contravention of the Catechism and church teaching. Put simply, it's promulgating heresy.

There's also this line:

"Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage;*

* Not being implemented at this time.

In other words, to paraphrase the authors of this statement, "this line is included to show you what we really think. As a parish, we think the teaching of the Church is wrong. And we're willing to say so in public. And although we're not yet willing to step over that bright red line that will get our parish closed, we're willing to trot right up to it and lean over it. And maybe stick our tongue out at the Bishop, and put our thumbs in our ears, and wiggle our fingers at him. And we've been willing to do so since 1994!"

The same goes for this:

Stand willing to accept qualified, openly gay or lesbian priests or lay ministers.

Sorry, but I think John Paul II already closed the door on the possibility of women priests. And if you think Rome is going to tolerate openly gay, lesbian priests, then I have to question whether you're really living in the same world the rest of us are, or in a fantasy world.

The whole Statement of Reconciliation is disobedient and provocative, especially in that it takes public aim at the bishops, who are the heirs of the apostles and the visible signs of unity in the church.

Now there are times when I think the bishops are wrong in certain of their statements. I think the bishops tend to stray into areas where they do not have a clear role to preach. I think sometimes they give us less than their best efforts or wisest guidance in matters of liturgy. And I think sometimes they are timid in promulgating the faith.

But I do no pick public fights with the Apostles -- which is what they are. I think about what they are saying, and I give them the respect they are due. And where I might hold private beliefs that differ from theirs, I try not to make a public issue of it.

I have written my own bishop on matters where I wanted something different from what my bishop was giving me. For instance, I like to attend the occasional Tridentine mass, and my diocese, prior to Summorum Pontificum, did not offer one (there is still no parish in my diocese that offers it regularly). I asked my bishop if there were plans to offer the mass. His liturgist wrote back to tell me, somewhat tersely, there were not. Since Summorum Pontificum, my bishop still has not commented publicly on the subject of the Tridentine mass.

I wish he would. I wish he would say "Parish X has volunteered to offer the mass regularly, and we'd like to support them in it." I wish he'd promote it.

But you know what? He hasn't, and I accept that. He is a busy man, there is a lot on his plate, and he may not have the time or resources to promote this. He may not even like the Tridentine mass. I don't know.

I do know that in his diocese, he has a Catholic college that he has to periodically rebuke on matters of their teaching, and he does so. He has done this even though it has opened him up to public criticism -- though certainly not from me, on that score.

But where he hasn't done what I want, I do not complain publicly about him. It is not my place to complain about my bishop. It is my place to learn from him. It is my place to accept what he says, not only when it is agreeable to me, but especially when it is disagreeable to me. He is the teacher, and we are the students. He is not infallible, and I do not know him personally, so I do not even know if he is a good man, at heart. I know that the church has appointed him to lead my diocese. And I support him.

And if I had a dispute with him, I'd try to figure out why I had a dispute with him. If it was because he was taking a different line from Scripture, the Catechism, or Rome, I'd certainly address him privately on the subject -- and if I didn't get an answer that satisfied me -- and if i could honestly state that the matter was serious, and I was not in simple error on it -- I'd write to Rome.

But is that the case with this parish in Minneapolis? We see them promulgating open and public disavowal of church teaching. They are clearly moving toward a fight with their bishop, and in that fight, I do not think that Rome is on their side -- and I do not think they could possibly believe that, either.

The Catholic church is not a political party, or a democracy. It may bend from time to time, but it doesn't reject two thousand years of teaching just because it has become politically popular to bless gay marriage. If you expect it to, then you're going to be disappointed. And this is not a simple matter of discipline -- Rome could, for instance, allow married clergy if it wanted to, as it has done so in the past (and in a few cases, in the present -- google the Pastoral Provision for former Anglican clergy if you want to see examples right here in the United States). This is a matter of moral doctrine. It is a matter of Catechism. It is also a matter of theology on which the Church has already devoted a lot of thought, and has already made up its mind. Scripture is clear on it, as well.

It isn't going to change on this one. Period.

But the bigger question I have is this:

If you question Rome's teaching to the point of open disobedience, then why do you even think you need Rome? Either Rome has the authority it claims, or it doesn't. If it does, then you are simply wrong. If it doesn't, then why do you want it to agree with you?

Why not join the Episcopal Church, which has all the beliefs you want, already?

The theologian J.I. Packer, an Anglican, continues the series of essays (the first of which I linked and discussed yesterday) on the Virgin Mary at First Things. The essays are from a joint Catholic-Evangelical task force, and Dr. Packer's essay, while it disagrees with Catholic teaching in a number of important conclusions, is nevertheless a great, thought-provoking read. I highly encourage you to read it, as his insights on the genesis of the scriptural accounts of the nativity story are wonderful.

I think that Catholic-Protestant discussions of this sort are highly productive, and are so much better than some of the bitter conversations Catholics and Protestants have on the web. First Things regularly has ecumencial dialogue in the highest and best sense of the word, and it is simply one of the best magazines in America for any religious person, of any faith or denomination, to read.

In English:

26. And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35. And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. 37. Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

In Latin:

26. In mense autem sexto missus est angelus Gabrihel a Deo in civitatem Galilaeae cui nomen Nazareth, 27. ad virginem desponsatam viro cui nomen erat Ioseph de domo David et nomen virginis Maria. 28. Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus 29. Quae cum vidisset turbata est in sermone eius et cogitabat qualis esset ista salutatio. 30. Et ait angelus ei ne timeas Maria invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum. 31. Ecce concipies in utero et paries filium et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. 32. Hic erit magnus et Filius Altissimi vocabitur et dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David patris eius 33. et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum et regni eius non erit finis. 34. Dixit autem Maria ad angelum quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco? 35. Et respondens angelus dixit ei Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi ideoque et quod nascetur sanctum vocabitur Filius Dei. 36. Et ecce Elisabeth cognata tua et ipsa concepit filium in senecta sua et hic mensis est sextus illi quae vocatur sterilis. 37. Quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum. 38. Dixit autem Maria ecce ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum et discessit ab illa angelus.

From a homily in Praise of the Virgin Mary, by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, abbot:

You have heard, O Virgin, that you will conceive and bear a son; you have heard that it will not be by man but by the Holy Spirit. The angel awaits an answer; it is time for him to return to God who sent him. We too are waiting, O Lady, for your word of compassion; the sentence of condemnation weighs heavily upon us. The price of our salvation is offered to you. We shall be set free at once if you consent. In the eternal Word of God we all came to be, and behold, we die. In your brief response we are to be remade in order to be recalled to life.

Tearful Adam with his sorrowing family begs this of you, O loving Virgin, in their exile from Paradise. Abraham begs it, David begs it. All the other holy patriarchs, your ancestors, ask it of you, as they dwell in the country of the shadow of death. This is what the whole earth waits for, prostrate at your feet. It is right in doing so, for on your word depends comfort for the wretched, ransom for the captive, freedom for the condemned, indeed, salvation for all the sons of Adam, the whole of your race.

Answer quickly, O Virgin. Reply in haste to the angel, or rather through the angel to the Lord. Answer with a word, receive the Word of God. Speak your own word, conceive the divine Word. Breathe a passing word, embrace the eternal Word.

Why do you delay, why are you afraid? Believe, give praise, and receive. Let humility be bold, let modesty be confident. This is no time for virginal simplicity to forget prudence. In this matter alone, O prudent Virgin, do not fear to be presumptuous. Though modest silence is pleasing, dutiful speech is now more necessary. Open your heart to faith, O blessed Virgin, your lips to praise, your womb to the Creator. See, the desired of all nations is at your door, knocking to enter. If he should pass by because of your delay, in sorrow you would begin to seek him afresh, the One whom your soul loves. Arise, hasten, open. Arise in faith, hasten in devotion, open in praise and thanksgiving.

Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, she says, be it done to me according to your word.

I own 5 Bibles. I own a Stuttgart Vulgate, a Jerusalem Bible, a St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a portable Ignatius version of the Revised Standard Version, and a Challoner Douay-Rheims.

I usually use the NAB when quoting Scripture for two reasons: it is the version used in Mass, and therefore the text most familiar to modern Catholics post Vatican II; and because it is the version used in the Liturgy of the Hours, so it is the one I read the most.

In my previous post, I use the Douay-Rheims translation of St. Jerome's Vulgate, instead of the New American Bible translation. My reason is because the NAB translates the Angelic Salutation as "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

I don't doubt that that is, in a scholarly sense, an acceptable translation of St. Luke's Greek. But in a devotional sense, I have to shake my head and ask "What were they thinking?"

The Angelic Salutation forms the first part of the Hail Mary, which every English-speaking Catholic knows begins as "Hail Mary, full of grace . . . " and which those of us eccentrics who pray the Rosary in Latin know is "Ave Maria, gratia plena." To translate the phrase as "favored one" seems pretty weird to Catholic ears.

Wikipedia has a discussion about the phrase in its entry on the Immaculate Conception:

Some Roman Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, (Luke 1:28). The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, "Χαίρε, Κεχαριτωμένη", Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced". The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel's salutation does not refer to the Incarnation of Christ in Mary's womb, as he proceeds to say: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb…" (Luke 1:31).

To me, when in doubt, I stick with St. Jerome. In the Vulgate, the passage is rendered "et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus" which to my eyes pretty readily translates as "and an angel entered, and to her said, 'Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women." Bishop Challoner's rendering, which is very faithful to Jerome, is a bit clunkier, but undoubtedly more scholarly*, and renders it as "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

The RSV renders it as "And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!". Again, scholarly, but tone deaf. And "he" is picking up on the angel's identity as Gabriel from verse 26, where he is named, ignoring the Vulgate's repetition of the word "angelus", angel, (and seeing verse 26, I would hastily revise my schoolboy translation to read "the angel entered").

The NAB follows the RSV; or perhaps both of them translate the Greek the same way.

The King James, which I don't own, but which is esteemed by all lovers of English, renders it is "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Given that my purpose for the post is devotional, as a meditation on the Rosary which I am building on my right hand margin, and that I am a Catholic, I'm sticking with St. Jerome and Bishop Challoner on this one.

* I had two semesters of Latin at Notre Dame, and got a C. I'm no scholar of Latin.

As with most -- all? -- papal encyclicals, the title is taken from the first words of the document -- in this case, spe salvi facti sumus, which is a quote from Romans 8:24.

“SPE SALVI facti sumus”—in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans, and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?

The full encyclical is here. Like all of Joseph Ratzinger's writing, it will take some time to digest, but will be well worth reading. His first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is here.

The brother of St. Peter, and first-called of the Apostles. In the Litany of the Saints, he follows St. Paul and precedes St. James, and is the patron saint of Scotland, Russia, and Greece. His veneration in Scotland dates from the eight century, as this fascinating article outlines.

Ora Pro Nobis